Blunders that Atheist make all the time:Examples of logical contradictions that some atheist makes all the time,

I don´t believe in free will, but I am a free thinker.

By definition, you can´t be a free thinker if there is no free will

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest and/or faith is dishonest

Honesty by definition implies that there is free will, you can´t be dishonest without free will

There are no objective moral values, but religion/God/Bible is morally wrong

If there is no objective morality, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong

My brain was not intelligently design; I trust my brain

If the brain was created by a mechanism that was not even trying to create a reliable brain (evolution) then there is no reason to assume that your brain is reliable, therefore you can´t trust your brain when you conclude things like “God does not exist”

leroy wrote:Blunders that Atheist make all the time:Examples of logical contradictions that some atheist makes all the time,

I don´t believe in free will, but I am a free thinker.

By definition, you can´t be a free thinker if there is no free will

This one just shows you don't know what a free thinker is. The claim is not that free thinkers have free will for their thoughts, but that they don't have any doctrinal or religious commitments that forbid or punish certain thoughts. In other words, that they are allowed to think any and all thoughts and that doing so is not somehow "sinful" or evil.

leroy wrote:

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest and/or faith is dishonest

Honesty by definition implies that there is free will, you can´t be dishonest without free will

That implies a computer can't tell a falsehood. It can.

Note though, that I'm a compatibilist. I do think there is free will, just not libertarian free will. Nevertheless your statement is a straw man of what people who reject free will think qualifies as honesty/dishonesty.

leroy wrote:

There are no objective moral values, but religion/God/Bible is morally wrong

If there is no objective morality, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong

Yes you do, it's just a subjective basis. That is still a basis.

leroy wrote:

My brain was not intelligently design; I trust my brain

If the brain was created by a mechanism that was not even trying to create a reliable brain (evolution)

Bzzzzt, thank you for playing. The brain's function is to reliably make decisions on sensory input about your surroundings (such that you don't get eaten by bears or die because you can't find water), so the brain is expected to be a roughly reliable organ on evolution.

Otherwise it simply wouldn't evolve, because it it consistently made mistakes about that sensory input, you'd end up dead. So the only kind of brain that CAN evolve is a roughly reliable one.

leroy wrote:Blunders that Atheist make all the time:Examples of logical contradictions that some atheist makes all the time,

I don´t believe in free will, but I am a free thinker.

By definition, you can´t be a free thinker if there is no free will

I don’t believe in free will, but creationists are dishonest and/or faith is dishonest

Honesty by definition implies that there is free will, you can´t be dishonest without free will

There are no objective moral values, but religion/God/Bible is morally wrong

If there is no objective morality, you have no basis to claim that something is wrong

My brain was not intelligently design; I trust my brain

If the brain was created by a mechanism that was not even trying to create a reliable brain (evolution) then there is no reason to assume that your brain is reliable, therefore you can´t trust your brain when you conclude things like “God does not exist”

I never understood the whole "no free will" camp. While it's true that the simplest life forms function by stimulus - reaction in a seemingly pre-programmed way, complex brains can override the instincts that we have to allow us to make options that would normally go against our left over "hard-wiring". So let's delete the "free will" arguments right off the top.

With regards to "objective morality", no, there is no grand "objective morality". All morality is subjective. The simple fact that moralities have changed throughout time should be sufficient enough to demonstrate that. It was, in certain cultures, perfectly moral to sacrifice people to please your gods, so much so that some South American cultures had volunteers for the sacrifice. Morality comes from individuals and is tempered by upbringing and culture. It varies, it's pliable. What may seem immoral to someone at one moment may no longer be considered amoral under different conditions and stresses.

Yes, our brains are not intelligently designed. Yes, we can trust them (for the most part) even though they're not perfect. (Consider optical illusions... failures of the brain to properly process visual inputs.) We know we can trust our brains because we have larges amounts of external input verifying this in the form of other people. If our brains are not processing reality correctly society is there to step in and basically take action, such as in removing psychopaths from where they can do harm. Now you can try and make the silly argument that the vast majority of the population is all wrong, but then you just look desperate for something to hang a failed argument on.

Rumraket wrote:This one just shows you don't know what a free thinker is. The claim is not that free thinkers have free will for their thoughts, but that they don't have any doctrinal or religious commitments that forbid or punish certain thoughts. In other words, that they are allowed to think any and all thoughts and that doing so is not somehow "sinful" or evil.

Free thinking by definition implies that you had a choice, you looked and the evidence and you freely decided that a given world view is better than the other.

If there is no freewill, then your world view is predetermined by the laws of nature, this is worse than a dogma,

That implies a computer can't tell a falsehood. It can.

There a difference between being wrong and being dishonest, to be dishonest implies that you knew the correct answer, but you willingly decided to lie. Dishonesty implies free will.

Yes you do, it's just a subjective basis. That is still a basis.

No objection there, if you think that the bible is morally wrong according to your own personal and subjective opinion, then you are not making any logical contradiction.

Bzzzzt, thank you for playing. The brain's function is to reliably make decisions on sensory input about your surroundings (such that you don't get eaten by bears or die because you can't find water), so the brain is expected to be a roughly reliable organ on evolution.

Otherwise it simply wouldn't evolve, because it it consistently made mistakes about that sensory input, you'd end up dead. So the only kind of brain that CAN evolve is a roughly reliable one.

If a delusion has survival value, then this delusion might evolve, for example most scientists believe that we were born with a religious instinct, if religion is a delusion, then it would follow that this delusion evolved.

Our brain might be reliable to find water because that has survival value, but what makes you think that your brain is reliable in answering hard philosophical and scientific questions like “where did we come from”

Rumraket wrote:This one just shows you don't know what a free thinker is. The claim is not that free thinkers have free will for their thoughts, but that they don't have any doctrinal or religious commitments that forbid or punish certain thoughts. In other words, that they are allowed to think any and all thoughts and that doing so is not somehow "sinful" or evil.

Free thinking by definition implies that you had a choice, you looked and the evidence and you freely decided that a given world view is better than the other.

If there is no freewill, then your world view is predetermined by the laws of nature, this is worse than a dogma,

The laws of nature don't determine how things work, they describe how things work. If something were to happen outside our understanding of the laws of nature that doesn't mean it happened outside the laws of nature, it simply means we need to revise our understanding of how nature works.

Me personally, I'm in the "evolved free will" camp. We are indeed influenced by our natural, evolved instincts however we can override those instincts consciously and make our own decisions.

The laws of nature don't determine how things work, they describe how things work. If something were to happen outside our understanding of the laws of nature that doesn't mean it happened outside the laws of nature, it simply means we need to revise our understanding of how nature works.

.

In this context with “laws of nature” I meant that your actions are caused by some chemicals in your brain, these chemicals reactions where caused a previous reactions that where caused by previous reactions … all the way back to the beginning of time.If this world view is true then you have no other option, all your actions, believes, thoughts are caused my predetermined conditions and you can´t not do anything about it.

Me personally, I'm in the "evolved free will" camp. We are indeed influenced by our natural, evolved instincts however we can override those instincts consciously and make our own decisions

I agree, that is what I meant by freewill

Some atheist rejects free will because that statement can´t be proven empirically and under their view if something can´t be proven you can´t know it.Obviously that is a very naïve point of view, there are millions of things that we accept as reality even when we can´t prove them empirically. For example I know that I had a cup of coffee this morning, but I can´t prove it however in the absence of some defeater, it is perfectly rational for me to live my daily live as if that cup of coffee was real.

You´ll be surprise to see how many atheist (even in this forum) would disagree with my coffee example

The laws of nature don't determine how things work, they describe how things work. If something were to happen outside our understanding of the laws of nature that doesn't mean it happened outside the laws of nature, it simply means we need to revise our understanding of how nature works.

.

In this context with “laws of nature” I meant that your actions are caused by some chemicals in your brain, these chemicals reactions where caused a previous reactions that where caused by previous reactions … all the way back to the beginning of time.If this world view is true then you have no other option, all your actions, believes, thoughts are caused my predetermined conditions and you can´t not do anything about it.

Me personally, I'm in the "evolved free will" camp. We are indeed influenced by our natural, evolved instincts however we can override those instincts consciously and make our own decisions

I agree, that is what I meant by freewill

Some atheist rejects free will because that statement can´t be proven empirically and under their view if something can´t be proven you can´t know it.Obviously that is a very naïve point of view, there are millions of things that we accept as reality even when we can´t prove them empirically. For example I know that I had a cup of coffee this morning, but I can´t prove it however in the absence of some defeater, it is perfectly rational for me to live my daily live as if that cup of coffee was real.

You´ll be surprise to see how many atheist (even in this forum) would disagree with my coffee example

I'd have to disagree with your definition of "laws of nature". It's very confusing and doesn't actually reflect what people mean when thinking of the "laws of nature". Bad definitions can ruin an argument before it even starts. You could go with something less bad (though not perfect) like "preprogramming" or the like. It's not that inaccurate... we are evolutionarily programmed to behave in certain ways. However, again, I do believe that our brains have evolved enough complexity to override that instinctive behavior, consider and change our behavior.

There are examples, though, of preprogramming in action, even on a large scale. A good one is something like mob mentality, when in large groups a few individuals can react in a way that nearly turns off the logic processing in the brains of a large crowd, especially if some strong emotional input is in play. I believe in riot situations you wind up seeing people reacting and behaving in a way that indicates their free will is not being used, they're operating on a more basal level. It can be terrifying and tragic.

I also disagree with your coffee example, but for different reasons... you can be chemically tested to see if you drank coffee.

I'd disagree that free will can't be demonstrated. One example I think is the fact that you can get people to change their minds and alter their behavior regardless of outside stimulus. While some would say that the fact you made someone change their mind means they're not using free will I'd disagree... the fact you made someone change their mind means they not only had to stop and not act on their own impulses, they also had to active make a choice against those impulses even if it's an action against what they'd normally do. (I'm not talking the level of brainwashing, it could be something as simple as forgoing a cigarette for a period of time even though all the chemical impulses in their brains want them to light up NOW!.)

I'd disagree that free will can't be demonstrated. One example I think is the fact that you can get people to change their minds and alter their behavior regardless of outside stimulus. While some would say that the fact you made someone change their mind means they're not using free will I'd disagree... the fact you made someone change their mind means they not only had to stop and not act on their own impulses, they also had to active make a choice against those impulses even if it's an action against what they'd normally do. (I'm not talking the level of brainwashing, it could be something as simple as forgoing a cigarette for a period of time even though all the chemical impulses in their brains want them to light up NOW!.)

But maybe you where predetermined to change your mind at a given point in a given predetermined situation.Empirically you can´t test the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, both scenarios are empirically equivalent.In my Coffee example my point is that it is reasonable for me to assume that I drank that coffee, even if I can´t prove it. And it would be reasonable until someone presents evidence to the contrary.

In my world view it seems reasonable to assume that God created humans with free will, ¿why would god create the illusion of free will, rather than actual free will? Unless someone presents evidence against the existence of free will, I am justified to accept the reality of free will.

Under atheism, I don´t see why should we accept the reality of free will, it seems easier for natural laws to create the illusiono of free will

leroy wrote:In my world view it seems reasonable to assume that God created humans with free will, ¿why would god create the illusion of free will, rather than actual free will? Unless someone presents evidence against the existence of free will, I am justified to accept the reality of free will.

Yet, the people I have seen argue the hardest against free will are theists (namely the Calvinists).

leroy wrote:Under atheism, I don´t see why should we accept the reality of free will, it seems easier for natural laws to create the illusiono of free will

What would be the difference between actual free will and the illusion of free will? As you said, if they cannot be shown to be different, than how would we know if they actually are different?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:, I don´t see why should we accept the reality of free will, it seems easier for natural laws to create the illusiono of free will

What would be the difference between actual free will and the illusion of free will? As you said, if they cannot be shown to be different, than how would we know if they actually are different?[/quote]

As I said, there is no empirical difference between free will and the illusion of free will, in the same way there is no empirical difference between the idea of me drinking that coffee or me having a false memory of a coffee.

Since God could have created free creatures and there is no reason to assume that free will is an illusion, it is reasonable to assume that we have free will.

But my original intent was not to prove that free will Is real, all I am saying that it is logically contradictory to deny free will and call yourself a free thinker and/or call someone dishonest. Agree?

I'd disagree that free will can't be demonstrated. One example I think is the fact that you can get people to change their minds and alter their behavior regardless of outside stimulus. While some would say that the fact you made someone change their mind means they're not using free will I'd disagree... the fact you made someone change their mind means they not only had to stop and not act on their own impulses, they also had to active make a choice against those impulses even if it's an action against what they'd normally do. (I'm not talking the level of brainwashing, it could be something as simple as forgoing a cigarette for a period of time even though all the chemical impulses in their brains want them to light up NOW!.)

But maybe you where predetermined to change your mind at a given point in a given predetermined situation.Empirically you can´t test the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, both scenarios are empirically equivalent.In my Coffee example my point is that it is reasonable for me to assume that I drank that coffee, even if I can´t prove it. And it would be reasonable until someone presents evidence to the contrary.

In my world view it seems reasonable to assume that God created humans with free will, ¿why would god create the illusion of free will, rather than actual free will? Unless someone presents evidence against the existence of free will, I am justified to accept the reality of free will.

Under atheism, I don´t see why should we accept the reality of free will, it seems easier for natural laws to create the illusiono of free will

If we can't test the difference between free will and the illusion of it then honestly, why bother going beyond that point. The results are the same, and natural explanations would cover both. Back to the coffee again. Heh.. I'm a coffee lover as well. You know what's weird? Ever have that morning when you're rushed out to work and can't quite remember whether or not you actually had a cup before you shot out the door? You always do, you swear you did, but when you get home the pot is full and your cup clean. The brain is good at filling in gaps and making up memories where it expects filled gaps and continuity. It seems like a flaw, it feels like a flaw when you see that cold, full pot of Joe... but it also would have survival benefits in our hunted past.

Reasonable to assume God created us with free will? How is that reasonable? It hasn't been actually demonstrated a God (or any gods) exist, it hasn't been demonstrated that a god is necessary for free will (or the comparable illusion of it) to exist... these are both huge assumptions that don't have the support of evidence backing them. Accepting an assumption that has no evidence at all supporting it is hardly what one would call reasonable. You say "Unless someone presents evidence against the existence of free will, I am justified to accept the reality of free will." which is fine (although this video seems to point against it... not fully through watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSLFLYVd_jE), at face value (aside from the "prove a negative thing..."), but even if free will is (as I tend to believe, or something close enough to free will to be close enough) indeed real there's no logical leap from "Free will" to "therefore God".

leroy wrote:Since God could have created free creatures and there is no reason to assume that free will is an illusion, it is reasonable to assume that we have free will.

No no no... this is broken all over the place!

"Since God could have created free creatures" many wrongs here already. No evidence for a God. No evidence that even if a god existed it created anything, let alone "free creatures".

"and there is no reason to assume that free will is an illusion" again with the wrong. Even I, who accepts an evolved sense of free will as likely, can't agree with this. There are reasons to think it may be more illusionary than not. From that video I linked above, there's mention that there's evidence your brain makes decisions before you are actually aware of them. Is that free will or the illusion of free will? Some would say illusion, your brain determined it before you were aware. Others may say it's still free will, the brain processes things quite rapidly and it takes time for that to become something we comprehend consciously, but it could still be our brain exercising free will.

" it is reasonable to assume that we have free will" Wrong only in the sense that if the conditions are broken the result can't be reached using those conditions (although it can be reached coincidentally).

Before anything can be used as an explanation of something else, it has to be shown to actually exist.

leroy wrote:Empirically you can´t test the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, both scenarios are empirically equivalent.

Frankly, it isn't an empirical proposition, not least because there's no way, even in principle, to either confirm or falsify either hypothesis.

In my Coffee example my point is that it is reasonable for me to assume that I drank that coffee, even if I can´t prove it. And it would be reasonable until someone presents evidence to the contrary.

That's like saying that it's reasonable to accept solipsism unless other entities can be shown to exist, as opposed to them being internally-generated experiences. Your logical fallacy is a classic onus probandi.

In my world view it seems reasonable to assume that God created humans with free will, ¿why would god create the illusion of free will, rather than actual free will? Unless someone presents evidence against the existence of free will, I am justified to accept the reality of free will.

And here you're compounding your onus probandi with a failure of Occam's Razor.

Under atheism, I don´t see why should we accept the reality of free will, it seems easier for natural laws to create the illusiono of free will

I don't see any good reason to draw any conclusions on either scenario.